You are here

Google's "G-Phone" an alligator versus bear fight?

Google's long rumored Google phone
or GPhone project has attracted a lot of comment and chatter, but not a lot of
good analysis to date. One big exception is a very good article last week by
Miguel Helft of the New York Times: "For
Google, Advertising and phones go together

  • The article accurately recasts
    the story not as competition to the Apple iphone device, but to Microsoft's
    Windows mobile software operating system.
    • The chatter seems to be fueled
      mostly by superficial similarities between the Apple iPhone and Google's
      rumored GPhone:
      • their one-letter sub-branding
      • their cultures of extreme secrecy
        about their plans, and
      • their similar "Midas touch" public
        relations successes.  
    • However, design of a physical object's
       that interfaces with people in an
      intuitive way is far from Google's core competency in search and system
      • No one at Apple is losing sleep
        over being leapfrogged in device design by Google.

What this is really about is an
"alligator vs bear" fight.

  • Alligator vs. bear fight? Stick
    with me.
  • It's an excellent metaphor for who
    wins -- when the alligator and bear fight?
    • It depends.
    • It depends on whether the fight
      occurs in the alligator's element of the water of the swamp, or in the bear's
      element of hard ground. 

Google is the alligator and
Microsoft and the Wireless carriers are the bear.

  • Google wants to pull
    Microsoft/wireless carriers into the profitless swamp of Linux "open" or free software, because
    Google's business model is the company/animal that can thrive in the swamp and
    doesn't require hard dollar subscriptions of dry land like Microsoft and
    wireless carriers do. 
  • Google thrives in the Internet
    profit swamp because it lives indirectly off of online advertising not directly
    off of subscription services.
    • Google knows that if it can pull
      the bear into the swamp the fight is over.
    • Simply Google is trying to get the
      US Government to force the bears to go into the swamp by arguing the what's good
      for Google is good for consumers.

Bottom line: What's important here
is that the government not artficially flood the land with "open" water of "net
neutrality" and "open access" regulation that effectively swamp subscription
service models that are demand-funded directly by consumers and  favor the
Googleopoly business model that is supply-funded by advertisers.

  • What's better for consumers long
    • Competition for consumers' hard
      earned dollars? or
    • One Googleopoly content
      bottleneck paid for by advertisers?
  • True competition best serves
    consumers, not Government-managed competition where the
    Government pre-determines market outcomes with preemptive open access of net
    neutrality regulation.